News Intel Core i9-10850K Hits Newegg for $500

[NightHawkRMX]

If anything AMD laptops are harder to find than Intel.

 

[Conahl]

Even when comparing only multithreaded apps the 3900x wins by 10% but by having 20% more cores.
You can choose between 10% better multi when getting the 3900x ...big deal /s
or 10% better single core performance per every available core when getting intel, also ...big deal

it is when the cpus have to use 50-100 watts MORE power then the amd cpus.

Intel keeps doing what they have been doing since forever, the bare minimum

and thats what they do best, the bare minimum. sticking the mainstream at quad core for how many years ? 10% or so performance increases year over year. good job intel.

Nobody wants the AMD chips which is why they are cheap and always in stock even though they (tsmc) are not even making that many of them.

yea ok, thats why i went from a 5830k to a 3900x, why 4 of my friends, dropped intel and went with a ryzen 3000 series, why a few more are in the process of upgrading from intel to amd, yea sure, no one wants AMD. most of the time, here, its intels cpu's that are on sale more often, then amd's, and intel's are usually have stock of 5 or less, or out of stock completely, where amd's are instock and 90% of the time STILL less expensive then the intel equivalents that are on sale.

Look up intel's finances,how do they lose market share,they are making twice the money than before

gotta love how people use this as their " proof " when some one else says intel is losing market share. of course they are still making more money, they STILL charge more for their cpus. 3900/xt : $700/730 ( with 17/20 in stock) 10920x $999 ( with 12 in stock at 3 of the local store branches at the store i buy my parts from ) and that's just one example.

 

[spongiemaster]

yea ok, thats why i went from a 5830k to a 3900x,

What's a 5830k?

 

[Conahl]

oops,. 5930k

 

[TerryLaze]

gotta love how people use this as their " proof " when some one else says intel is losing market share. of course they are still making more money, they STILL charge more for their cpus.

The only reason market share matters is because that's how companies make money.

and thats what they do best, the bare minimum. sticking the mainstream at quad core for how many years ? 10% or so performance increases year over year. good job intel.

That's just as much on AMD, if they weren't so terrible at making CPUs back then we would have had much better CPUs wouldn't we?!

Nobody wants AMD, seriously? Actual proof of them losing market share.

That's not actual proof,of course after selling all the intel chips that the retailers have they are going to start selling only the things they have left.

 

[Conahl]

That's just as much on AMD, if they weren't so terrible at making CPUs back then we would have had much better CPUs wouldn't we?!

and maybe intel wouldn't of stagnated the cpu market, and stuck the mainstream at quad core for how many years ?? intel COULD of innovated, and moved the cpu market forward, but they didn't , thats on intel for being lazy

 

[logainofhades]

AMD is not gaining market share just because Intel supplies are low. I haven't had any issues buying an Intel anything. My laptop is a 9750h equipped Lenovo Legion. When I bought it, microcenter had all kinds of Intel laptops, at different price points. AMD laptops were harder to find. Shopping for laptops, for my wife's cousin, Intel laptops were easy enough to find, AMD 4000 not so much. Supplies were low, overall, due to people buying like crazy, due to remote learning, and the STL Microcenter having a tax free weekend, but the ratio of Intel to AMD supply was still very much in Intel's favor. That was only a week ago. Looking at stock, at said Microcenter, other than the 10900k, supplies of Intel CPU's, are just fine. The 10850k exists because the 10900k yields are low. I have never been there, and had an issue with not being able to buy an Intel CPU, and board, if I wanted to. AMD, though, I have. Motherboard shortages specifically.


The fact that AMD has been gaining market share, despite motherboard shortages, show that people simply are not buying Intel as much, these days. They are gaining market share, because price/performance they are simply just better, right now. Intel, while the pricing has recently improved, still thinks they can command high prices for a meager amount of performance benefit. They are overcharging, and using name recognition to do it. 10th gen was the first time Intel has done any kind of price cutting, that I can ever remember, and I have been building rigs, for 20yrs.

AMD has forced them to finally attempt to compete, on pricing, and that's a good thing. When competition is good, the consumer benefits. I want Intel to succeed, to keep the competition going. While its good to see them knocked down a peg or two, I don't want to see them be what AMD was pre Ryzen. That doesn't do anyone any good. Any company being completely on top, for too long, stagnates innovation. The lack of real innovation from Sandy Bridge through Kaby Lake is proof of this. The process improved, but IPC gains were meager, and we were stuck at 4c/8t for non HEDT platforms, and those higher core count HEDT were pricey.

 

[PCWarrior]

From July 2020 when the 3900X launched until late November 2019 when the 3950X launched you couldn’t buy the 3900X for lower than $560-$570 dollars even when bought directly from Amazon or Newegg. Not to mention the price gouging from 3rd party sellers that were selling it for over $700 during that period. Thereafter, and until the launch of Comet lake started approaching (i.e. around March 2020), the 3900X was retailing for around its MSRP or a little over it $490-$530 (mostly $520-$530 until January).

Ever since the launch of Comet lake, the price of the 3900X dropped to $390-$430. A $100 drop. You also had $70 off the retail price of the 3950X, $60 off the price of the 3700X, etc. So even if you are a die-hard AMD fanboy and you consider AMD to be your lord and saviour remember to thank Intel about that $60-$100 discount on the price of 3000-series cpus. And you should also be thanking Intel for the appearance of the B550 and A520 boards which AMD held on for an entire year and if you wanted to get PCIe4 (for which you paid for the cpu) you had to shell $100 more than equivalent tier X470 boards.

As for the 10850K, it is clear that by Intel relaxing 100MHz, the availability of unlocked 10-core i9 cpus will improve. Because currently you are really unable to find a 10900K in stock and if you do is massively over its MSRP. But on the plus side the availability of the octacore 10700 and 10700K is good. And they are both retailing around their MSRP and even a bit below that. Octa-cores are (and will be for years) the sweet spot for gaming and prosumer applications. And the $320-$370 range was actually the range that traditionally someone buying a mainstream platform cpu and opting for the flagship was paying. Don’t forget that this $500 tier of mainstream cpus only exists since March 2017 when AMD introduced the $500 price tier in the mainstream platform with the 1800X (and later Intel continued with the 9900K in October 2018 and then AMD with the 3900X in July 2019 and then Intel with the 10900K in May 2020 and AMD again with the 3900XT).

 

[NightHawkRMX]

From July 2020 when the 3900X launched until late November 2019 when the 3950X launched you couldn’t buy the 3900X for lower than $560-$570 dollars even when bought directly from Amazon or Newegg. Not to mention the price gouging from 3rd party sellers that were selling it for over $700 during that period. Thereafter, and until the launch of Comet lake started approaching (i.e. around March 2020), the 3900X was retailing for around its MSRP or a little over it $490-$530 (mostly $520-$530 until January).

Ever since the launch of Comet lake, the price of the 3900X dropped to $390-$430. A $100 drop. You also had $70 off the retail price of the 3950X, $60 off the price of the 3700X, etc. So even if you are a die-hard AMD fanboy and you consider AMD to be your lord and saviour remember to thank Intel about that $60-$100 discount on the price of 3000-series cpus. And you should also be thanking Intel for the appearance of the B550 and A520 boards which AMD held on for an entire year and if you wanted to get PCIe4 (for which you paid for the cpu) you had to shell $100 more than equivalent tier X470 boards.

If you are talking about USA price trends, check your facts. These price drops happened well before Comet lake was around in the case of the 3900x.

While there was indeed stock issue at first, no, the cost was not suddenly dropped due to comet lake.
Here is the price history of the 3900x on PCPartpicker which shows the prices from multiple merchants over the past year.
https://ibb.co/PQwrZXT
The 3900x price has been going down since stock was sorted in January, which was nearly 6 months before Comet lake launched in late may. MemoryC (a company I didn't know existed until today) is the only real exception.

Here is the 3950x
https://ibb.co/wdRSWRm
Price has been going down since stock was sorted in March, with MemoryC again being the only real exception.

If anything Comet lake had more effect on the 3950x price, and the 3900x just continued the trend that started far before 10th gen was around.

 

[Conahl]

So even if you are a die-hard AMD fanboy and you consider AMD to be your lord and saviour remember to thank Intel about that $60-$100 discount on the price of 3000-series cpus

and by that same token, you can thank AMD for intel releasing more then 4 cores on the mainstream cpus, and maybe now getting off their butts and attempting to innovate again. not top mention the pretty big price drops intel themselves did between the 9th and 10gen prices, wasnt it almost a grand difference for the top cpu ?
before Zen was released, what did intel do ? most intel fanboys STILL consider intel to be their god.

 

[PCWarrior]

While there was indeed stock issue at first, no, the cost was not suddenly dropped due to comet lake. Here is the price history of the 3900x on PCPartpicker which shows the prices from multiple merchants over the past year. https://ibb.co/PQwrZXT The 3900x price has been going down since stock was sorted in January, which was nearly 6 months before Comet lake launched in late may.

What I said before reflects actual observation. You should also keep in mind that a lot of times when a retailer doesn’t have stock for a particular part the listed price remains what it was before it went out of stock – PC Part picker gets fooled by that. Anyway the reality is that the 3900X was consistently retailing for $570 until the launch of the 3950X in late November 2019. Thereafter and until March 2020 it was retailing for $490-$530. The Comet lake CPUs were originally scheduled to launch at the end of March 2020. AMD knew about that (they get the dates from motherboard vendors as does Intel for AMD launches) and they started discounts (through rebates to retailers) at the beginning of March. However due to COVID-19 Intel decided to delay the launch of Comet lake by 2 months. That’s why it appears as if AMD started discounting their 3000-series well before Comet lake launched but in fact the two are directly correlated. I can guarantee you that without Intel’s Comet lake looming, AMD would have happily still kept selling the 3900X for $490-$500.

and by that same token, you can thank AMD for intel releasing more then 4 cores on the mainstream cpus, and maybe now getting off their butts and attempting to innovate again. not top mention the pretty big price drops intel themselves did between the 9th and 10 gen prices, wasn't it almost a grand difference for the top cpu ? before Zen was released, what did intel do ? most intel fanboys STILL consider intel to be their god.

Is there really any forum thread with a CPU topic over the last 3.5 years where an AMD fanboy doesn’t pop up to say exactly this? That we should all be thankful to AMD for forcing Intel to compete on pricing? I don't think that I need to repeat that myself. What I am merely pointing out is that this works both ways. AMD fanboys seem to forget that basic thing. They consider AMD as some kind of benevolent organisation instead of a multi-billion public trading corporation (just like Intel is). Also if you think about who forced who, you could argue that Intel forced AMD’s original Ryzen pricing. AMD was forced into such a dire market share and financial situation that they became desperate. And when you are desperate you start offering much lower prices to gain attention. First gen Ryzen not only had to be cheaper than Intel's counterparts based on performance alone but it also had to be considerably cheaper in order for AMD to start gaining any attention and market share again. Also let's not forget that the platform was riddled with issues. It was really a beta testing where the tester was even paying to test.

 

[spongiemaster]

Under $600 10th gen Intel laptops are not hard to find. Found them, on Amazon, with little time spent at all. Even can get them with Prime shipping.

Can you get in touch with these organizations and let them know there is no shortage of laptops, and how easy they are to find on Amazon?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/laptop-shortage-of-nearly-5-million-affects-us-school-districts

 

[Conahl]

Is there really any forum thread with a CPU topic over the last 3.5 years where an AMD fanboy doesn’t pop up to say exactly this?

is there really any forum thread with a cpu topic that an intel fan boy really believes that intel didnt stop innovating, didnt say the words " we don't need more then 4 cores in the mainstream " and didnt stagnate the cpu industry for what was it, 5 years ? come on pcwarrior even you should be able to see that, but i guess your own intel fanboyism prevents that.

AMD fanboys seem to forget that basic thing. They consider AMD as some kind of benevolent organization instead of a multi-billion public trading corporation

and intel fanboys seem to forget the EXACT same thing, whats your point ?

AMD was forced into such a dire market share and financial situation that they became desperate.

and now, intel looks like they are the ones that are getting desperate.

Also let's not forget that the platform was riddled with issues

and i guess that means intels platforms have always been perfect when released ? yea ok. sure. i have had issues with both over the years. both have had, and continue to have their strengths and weaknesses